ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal observed that the NFAC's order was not a speaking order and failed to consider the appellant's arguments and prior ITAT directions. The issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 was bad in law because it did not strike out the irrelevant limb, thus failing to inform the assessee of the specific ground for penalty. This was considered a violation of natural justice and not a mere procedural defect.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed belatedly. While the assessee's non-compliance in prior proceedings was acknowledged, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present his case before the first appellate authority for de novo adjudication, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to follow the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. by not disposing of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment with a speaking order. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-. Considering that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's lack of response, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the same CIT(A) had set aside the matter for other assessment years in the block period and, finding the facts to be identical, deemed it proper to restore the captioned appeals to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to follow the directions given by the CIT(A) in his earlier order.

The Tribunal held that the said amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was already offered for taxation and considered in the combined cash flow statement of the Swastik group, which was accepted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). Therefore, no further addition was required in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was in error for dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance with hearing notices, especially when the notices were sent to an outdated email address. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when the addition to income is made on an estimated basis. The Tribunal followed its own precedents and High Court decisions to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the penalty, the quantum of penalty needs to be recomputed in light of the ITAT's subsequent decision in the quantum appeal, which had reduced the addition. The Tribunal also imposed a cost on the assessee for its non-compliant attitude.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The disallowance made by the authorities below was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the first appellate authority, adhering to principles of natural justice. The issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the trust income was clubbed with and taxed in the hands of the assessee, the assessee is entitled to credit for the TDS deducted on that income, irrespective of its appearance in Form 26AS, and directed the AO to allow the credit.

The Tribunal held that the loans in question, including those from Dotch Sales Private Limited and other parties, were genuine, considering evidence provided, prior settlement commission findings, and the creditworthiness of the lenders. Consequently, the additions and disallowances related to these loans and interest were deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's affidavit. Observing that the matter should be decided on merits and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued in contravention of Section 149 as the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs and the notice was issued beyond three years. Furthermore, the approval for reassessment was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the error in selecting the clause was inadvertent and procedural, not mala fide, and should not result in denial of the statutory benefit. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for rectification and reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order passed in the name of a deceased person, despite knowledge of the death, is void ab initio. Therefore, the order is set aside, and the CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after impleading the legal heirs.

The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly invoked Section 69B and sidelined exceptions under Sections 50C and 56(2)(vii). The assessee had sufficiently explained the transaction based on the allotment letter date. For the second issue, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter to the AO for verification of the donation receipts.

The Tribunal held that the dividend income is eligible for exemption and the short-term capital loss is allowable for set-off. The Tribunal found no evidence of sham transactions or manipulation and relied on Supreme Court judgments regarding tax planning.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for resolution under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and submitted the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 225 days. Considering the interest of natural justice and to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO incorrectly applied Rule 11UA for AY 2015-16, as the relevant rule required valuation based on book value, not FMV of underlying assets. Furthermore, the AO's calculation of shares and the consideration of alleged bogus premium were flawed. For AY 2016-17, the amended Rule 11UA, which considers the FMV of underlying assets, was applicable only from AY 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that the loans, including from Dotch Sales Private Limited, were genuine. This was supported by the Settlement Commission's findings, extensive documentation provided by the assessee, and the creditworthiness of the lenders. Consequently, the additions and disallowances made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the income of the trust was clubbed and taxed in the hands of the assessee, and there were technical difficulties preventing the trust from filing its return, the assessee is entitled to claim credit for the TDS deducted on that income.

The Tribunal noted that the timeline for filing Form 10AB has been extended by CBDT circulars due to hardships faced by charitable institutions. The issue of condoning the delay in filing Form 10B and the claimed deduction were remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not comply with the AO's notices and filed wrong grounds before the CIT(A). However, considering that the assessee was not given an opportunity to rectify an error in Form 35, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the loans taken by the assessee from the identified parties were genuine, especially considering the findings of the ITSC and the documentary evidence produced. Consequently, the additions made by the AO on account of these loans and the disallowance of interest were deleted. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the assessee had no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceeding was invalid and bad in law. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s. Coronation Agro Industries Ltd., which stated that mere information about CCM does not establish escapement of income, and reassessment based on suspicion rather than reason to believe is without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's sufficient cause. Considering the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment, allowing one more opportunity to present the case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that provisions for post closure and pit covering expenses are allowable deductions, consistently following its own previous decisions and those of higher courts. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim based on these precedents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A and the addition under Section 5 was justified, following consistent precedents from earlier years and coordinate benches. The Tribunal found no change in facts or circumstances to deviate from these prior decisions.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the arguments from both parties. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient and reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly with the CIT(A), as the delay was within 30 days of receiving the assessment order. The delay was condoned, and the order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had substantiated the source of investment in the property, with the majority sourced from a home loan and past savings.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application on technical grounds rather than merits. Citing High Court rulings against deciding on mere technicalities, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the case back to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee another opportunity to submit documents and decide the application on merits.